This question asks which constitutional power the President of India can exercise independently without needing the advice of the Council of Ministers.
The President of India's powers are classified into two categories: discretionary powers (exercised independently) and non-discretionary powers (exercised on ministerial advice). The appointment of the Prime Minister is a discretionary power because the President must use personal judgment to select the leader most likely to command majority support in the Lok Sabha, especially in situations of political uncertainty or coalition governments. In contrast, powers like granting pardons (Article 72), appointing judges (Article 124), and dissolving the Lok Sabha (Article 85) are all exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, making them non-discretionary powers where the President acts on ministerial recommendation.
The correct answer is (A) Appointment of Prime Minister, as this is one of the few discretionary powers the President exercises independently without the mandatory aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
1. It has original jurisdiction in cases between Union and States
2. It can issue writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto
3. The Chief Justice of India is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the outgoing Chief Justice
4. Advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court can only be exercised at the request of the President
Which statements are correct?
This question tests knowledge of the jurisdiction, powers, and appointment procedures of the Supreme Court of India as per the Constitution.
Statement 1: Original jurisdiction in cases between Union and States - CORRECT
Article 131 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes between the Union and States, or between States themselves. This is a fundamental constitutional power.
Statement 2: Power to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto) - CORRECT
Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights. These five writs—Habeas Corpus (against unlawful detention), Mandamus (to compel performance of duty), Prohibition (to restrain lower courts), Certiorari (to quash orders), and Quo Warranto (to challenge authority)—are all recognized writs that the Supreme Court can issue.
Statement 3: Chief Justice appointed by President on recommendation of outgoing Chief Justice - INCORRECT
The Chief Justice of India is appointed by the President, but the recommendation comes from the incumbent Chief Justice (not the outgoing one specifically), and the process involves consultation with the government. While the senior-most judge typically becomes Chief Justice, this is not a formal recommendation requirement in all cases.
**Statement 4:
This question tests knowledge of the President's emergency powers under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, specifically regarding National Emergency declarations and their constitutional effects.
Article 352 specifies that National Emergency can be declared only on three grounds: war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. This statement is CORRECT as it accurately reflects the constitutional provision.
The President can declare a National Emergency without seeking Parliament's prior approval—this is an executive prerogative. However, the declaration must be approved by Parliament within 2 months. This statement is CORRECT regarding the absence of prior approval requirement.
Statement C is CORRECT: Once declared, National Emergency requires Parliament's approval within 2 months (later amended to 30 days in some cases). Statement D is INCORRECT because Article 352 does not automatically suspend Fundamental Rights under Article 19. Only Articles 19, 20, and 21 can be suspended, and Article 19 requires a specific declaration under Article 359, not automatic suspension merely by declaring National Emergency.
**The correct answer is (D) because National Emergency does not automatically suspend Fundamental Rights under Article 19—suspension requires an additional declaration under Article 359
This question asks about the constitutional limitations on the amendment procedure under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution.
The Indian Constitution can be amended through Article 368, but the Supreme Court has established that certain fundamental features cannot be amended, even through the prescribed amendment procedure. This doctrine is known as the "Basic Structure Doctrine."
In the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that while Article 368 grants broad amendment powers, amendments cannot destroy or alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The federal structure—which divides powers between the Union and States and guarantees the autonomy of states—is considered a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be amended away.
In contrast, the Preamble (amended in 1976), the structure of the Supreme Court (modified several times), and Fundamental Duties (added in 1976 itself) have all been successfully amended, proving they are not part of the unamendable basic structure.
The federal structure of the Constitution cannot be amended even through the prescribed amendment procedure under Article 368, as established by the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Article 358 and 359 deal with suspension of Fundamental Rights during emergency.
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) cannot be suspended even during National Emergency.
Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) can be suspended.
Articles 14-16 (equality rights) generally cannot be suspended.
The President has power to suspend rights but Article 21 is protected.
During National Emergency declared under Article 352, Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended (Article 358).
Article 20 protects against ex post facto laws and double jeopardy.
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty.
Article 19 (freedoms) can be suspended during emergency.
Article 14 (equality) is generally protected but Article 358 specifically carves out Articles 20-21.
Article 15(3) allows the State to make special provisions for women and children.
Additionally, certain personal law matters related to adoption and guardianship are excluded from Article 15's purview.
Option B is covered by Article 15(4) for backward classes, Option C is not permitted, and Option D is covered by Article 16(3) regarding employment.
The 44th Amendment Act (1978) limited the duration of National Emergency. A proclamation of National Emergency can be revoked and re-declared, but theoretically, there is no absolute constitutional limit on total duration if it is continuously approved by Parliament.
Option A is correct per the 44th Amendment (written advice required).
Option B is correct per Article 352(4).
Option C is correct per Article 353.
Option D is the incorrect statement as there is no such three-period limit mentioned in the Constitution.
The 42nd Amendment (1976) made several significant changes including adding 'Secular' and 'Socialist' to the Preamble, expanded DPSP, and made other changes.
However, the anti-defection law was introduced through the 52nd Amendment Act (1985), not the 42nd Amendment.
The voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 years through the 61st Amendment (1989).
Article 368 distinguishes between amendments.
Changes to the language provisions (Part XVII) and other non-fundamental aspects can be amended by Parliament with simple majority.
Federal structure, President's powers, and state representation require special majority and sometimes state ratification under Article 368.